TV weathercasters divided on global warming

Before Spencer Christian, a weather forecaster with KGO-TV Channel 7 in
San Francisco, steps before the camera during the station's 6 p.m.
newscast, he scrutinizes a computer screen to analyze the latest
forecasting data.

But unlike some of his counterparts, Christian doesn't view his
extensive knowledge of storm fronts and high-pressure systems on the
week's weather as credentials to assess the effects of greenhouse gases
on the Earth's climate in the coming decades.

"The climatologists are the experts in this field," said Christian, who
started weather reporting in 1975 and worked for 12 years as the
weather anchor on "Good Morning America" in New York City before
joining KGO-TV in 1999.

Christian is among the majority of TV weathercasters — but a slim
majority, only 54 percent — who believe that the planet is warming,
according to a new survey.

About one-quarter of the 571 weathercasters surveyed also said they've
seen evidence of climate change in their local weather patterns. The
survey was released this month by researchers at George Mason
University and the University of Texas at Austin.

Nonetheless, while other surveys have reported that more than 90
percent of climate scientists think that human-generated greenhouse
gases are a major contributor to climate change, just under one-third
of weathercasters think human activity is behind the rise in average
global temperatures in recent decades. And about
Advertisement
a quarter of those polled agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a scam."

These divided views between climate scientists and weathercasters
matter, the surveyors said, because TV weather anchors have become the
de facto science reporters on most TV newscasts. Only 10 percent of TV
stations have a dedicated news reporter covering the topic, and
two-thirds of the weathercasters were eager to add reporting on climate
science to their coverage.

Almost half of them reported discussing climate science with news
anchors during broadcasts, and nearly 90 percent said they had spoken
on the subject in a public forum, according to the survey.

"Some of the people who do weather on TV actually may have a degree in
meteorology and some of them don't," said David Easterling, chief of
the scientific services division with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and chair of the American Meteorology
Society's Climate Variability and Change committee. "But they have an
important role to play in the whole climate change issue," he said.
"People see them as a credible source of information on TV."

The American Meteorology Society concurs with the assessment by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human-generated
greenhouse gases are behind the steady rise in temperatures since the
dawn of the Industrial Age.

The society confers its esteemed meteorological certification for
broadcasters, which it now awards to those who have earned at least a
bachelor's degree in meteorology and have passed a written exam offered
by the society. The certification process is designed "to encourage a
broader range of scientific understanding, especially with respect to
environmental issues," the society states on its Web site.

That certification, or even just the college degree, distinguishes
meteorologists from weather forecasters — who may or may not have
training in the field. About half the TV weather forecasters nationwide
are meteorologists. The schism in beliefs identified by the university
researchers is borne out in the Bay Area, where past and present
weather anchors offer differing views on climate change.

The most outspoken local meteorologist insisting that global warming is a hoax is Brian Sussman, a former KPIX-TV meteorologist who now hosts the morning show on conservative talk radio show KSFO-AM.
Nationwide, a few other weather forecasters, such as John Coleman of
KUSI in San Diego, are well-known for challenging assertions that human
activity is altering the climate, and they're in demand as commentators
on conservative talk radio and cable television. They're also courted
as scientific experts on the speaker circuit.

That role for a weathercaster, though, doesn't sit well with Bill Martin, chief meteorologist with KTVU-TV in Oakland.

"I do hear other meteorologists, some who are ex-meteorologists and
some who are now working in industry, talking about global warming
being a sham," Martin said. "It frustrates me. For a lot of us it does."

Martin said evidence is clear that the planet has been warming steadily in modern times.

"If you look at the math and the numbers and the charts and the graphs,
and say the planet's not warming, then you're not following the
scientific method," Martin said.

The 2007 IPCC report noted that 11 of the previous 12 years were the
warmest since temperature record-keeping began around 1850. Average
temperatures have risen steadily over the past century, with most of
the warming occurring during the past 50 years. Christian, the weather
forecaster for KGO-TV, is also dismayed by the skeptics of climate
science in the weather forecasting field.

Meteorologists, Christian said, have the same political biases as found
among the public, "which may shape their views on climate change."

Sussman,
however, was surprised that so many weather forecasters supported
climate scientists' views that the planet is warming, with much of it
linked to the burning of fossil fuel, which releases the heat-trapping
gas carbon dioxide. He believes many more doubt that humans are causing
global warming, and "a lot of them are worried about their job security
should they come out and declare that."

He believes
meteorologists are well-qualified to speak to, and debunk, climate
science. "I think climate and the weather are very easy to understand."

Sussman, who has a book called "Climategate" scheduled
for release on Earth Day, April 22, said the book challenges scientific
assertions about climate change, and that it's "bulletproof" with its
hundreds of scientific citations.

He said CO2
is "truly the least potent" greenhouse gas, and that it in fact will
help promote plant growth, since plants absorb CO2 and process it into
carbohydrates.

And "the
biggest crock in all of this," he said, is that water vapor is in fact
the primary greenhouse gas. Yet Sussman said none of the climate models
used to predict warming trends take that into account.

"Ninety-five percent of all greenhouse gas is water vapor, and none of those models consider that," Sussman said.

Easterling, of the NOAA, was quick to counter Sussman's claims.

"It appears Mr. Sussman is as uninformed as I suspect most TV
weathercasters are," he said. "Of course (the models) consider water
vapor."

Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist, described as
"laughable" the percentages used by Sussman. "The potency of the
greenhouse gas matters, not the quantity," he said. "A tiny amount of
Ebola virus can kill you."

Water vapor, Schneider explained, is a weak heat-trapping gas, compared
with CO2 and certainly with more potent greenhouse gases like methane.
Since the 1960s, climate models have factored in water vapor as the
most abundant greenhouse gas, he said.

"He is misfiring on all cylinders," Schneider said.

William Hooke, the director of the American Meteorological Society,
staked out a middle ground on the legitimacy of weathercasters and
meteorologists speaking out on the subject of climate change.

"As with any other subject, we should be free to speak our mind," Hooke said.

But "all of us need to do our homework and make sure our statements are factual."